Scientific Fraud: Cold Fusion

For a good case of science fraud, it’s hard to beat the Cold Fusion controversy. Cold Fusion refers to a series of experiments published in 1989 by Fleischmann and Pons (Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, Stanley (1989), "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium", Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 261 (2A): 301–308, doi:10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3). They claimed to have observed “anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes in their apparatus, which fit on a lab table top. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] The experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.” (Taken from the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion),
However, a large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the publication of several reasons of why it was unlikely to occur, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts, led to loss of credibility by most workers in the field (see for example, Browne, M. (May 3, 1989), "Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion", New York Times, http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html, retrieved 2008-05-25). By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead
However there continues to be a small group of researchers who are investigating cold fusion work and who publish in non-peer reviewed journals. Mainstream scientists consider Cold Fusion Research to be a dead end and are probably not aware of any research being done in the field, which has had no successes.
So why bring this up? I feel there are many similarities between Cold Fusion research and the Researchers who try to disprove climate change. They are funded outside of the normal publicly scrutinized channels such as the NSF, mostly by energy companies, and they do not publish in peer review Journals. The difference, of course, is that conservative wings of the Republican Party have not held up the banner of Cold Fusion as the most important scientific discovery of the new century, which I think is a shame. Rather than waste their time trying to defend a science which mostly seems to say; ”No ignore what that thermometer says and don’t look at all those melting glaciers. Hey you, listen to me,” they could be supporting some kind of crazy research which at least has the honorable goal of producing clean energy from a new untried and apparently limitless source. What a pity we can’t harness the wind power of political demagogy.

Climate change and scientists Motives

One of the things that is starting to really upset me is this claim that Scientists who are studying climate change and have found evidence that it is happening, for example Rick Perry’s statement, quoted by New Hampshire Union Leader editorial page editor Drew Cline: "A substantial number of scientists [have] manipulated data to keep the money rolling in," and that somehow there is some kind of hoax going on by peer reviewed scientists to perpetuate grant money.


First, I would like to point out that that most research scientists do not make anywhere near what industry scientists make, and they are the ones who are publishing most papers that claim to disprove climate change.

But I think that we need to take a quick thinking break here. If scientists were trying to keep the grant dollars rolling in, surely they would say that they don’t understand climate change yet but that they need more and more money to study it. In fact what is going on is that most scientists say that there is no doubt that the global averaged temperatures have been rising and that it is most likely caused by the release of CO2 from that burning.

I think that it is a lot more revealing that the climate change deniers seem to think that for all scientists, the search for correct theories is driven by the politics and biases of the researchers. Sounds like that is the way they would do science.

Soylent Green

Mrs. Blink and I rented Soylent Green last weekend.
Soylent-Green-Charlton-Heston

I never saw this movie when it came out in 1973, but it was amazing to see it now. First I was surprised at how well it stood the test of time, and second by how exciting it was. The screenplay is based on a novel published in 1966, Make Room, Make Room! by Harry Harrsion,


The movie stars Charlton Heston as Thom, a tough detective in New York in 2022. The world is showing the effects of overpopulation and environmental degradation, and major climate change. Thom is helped by his roommate Roth, an older man from our era who can still remember things like how to cook steak and who constantly complains about the time he is living in now. His part is played by Edward G. Robinson, in his last movie role.

Thom has to solve the murder of a board member of the Soylent Green Corporation, William R. Simonson (Joseph Cotton). Soylent Corporation, which seems to be responsible for everything in this future, supplies plankton-based food to the world. Solent food comes in different varieties and each day, a different color of Soylent is sold. Tuesdays are Soylent Green days which is the most popular. Vegetables are for the well off, and meat and eggs are hardly ever available. The land is covered with people and yes, even the plankton is running out. The bleak future is show to us in a lot of clever small ways. There are squatters who pay rent to live on the stairways of Thom’s apartment.

As he carries out his investigation, Thom first visits the apartment of Simonson, where he meets his live in mistress, Shirl (played by Leigh Taylor-Young), As Thom questions her about the night of the murder when she was out shopping with Simonson’s guard, he ransacks the place taking pillows and whatever food he can scrounge from the fridge. Simonson actually has a cut of beef in his refrigerator. Of course Thom comes back; he finds out that Shirl is considered part of the furniture and will go to the next man who rents the place. He starts by using Shirl as Simonson did, but he as he gets to know her, he starts to like and then feel sorry for her, as he sees how she is used despite her luxurious lifestyle. One of the prophetic moments comes when Shirl offers to turn the air condition on so that it “will be just as cold as it was when we had winters.” Creepy.

As Thom continues his investigation the murders start to go after him to keep him from finding the secret of the movie. Even though I had heard what it is, the way it is done was still very affecting and though it has become a cliché, it is still worth keeping as a surprise.

The movie has some fun dated aspects to it. The filmmakers didn’t predict cell phones and personal computers, which would have radically changed many parts of the film. Sexism is alive and well even though racism is gone. It is nicely done.

YouTube Preview.. with spoiler - Warning!!

The Blink gives it 4 out of 5 blinks.

Review of Gone for Soldiers by Jeff Shaara

2000, Published by Ballantine Books, New York. (Link to Amazon Page for Gone for Soldiers)

Jeff Shaara and his father, Michael Shaara, have written a series of books that are an exciting, first person immersion in the Civil War. I think the best known is Michael Sahara’s Gods and Generals. Gone for Soldiers gives a similar first person view into the experiences of Robert E. Lee and others in the war that in many ways prepared the American military for the Civil War, the Mexican American war. This war could be said to start with the annexation of Texas into the United States in 1845, and ended with the capture of Mexico City and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. This treaty established the Rio Grande as the southern boundary of Texas, and cedes the Territories of New Mexico and California to the United States.
Background: The generals of the war are Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and Winfield Scott. Santa Anna has a fascinating story beyond the scope of the book. He is a European style general, believing in the superiority of numbers and a strong cavalry, forts and fortifications. Scott, seasoned in the war of 1812, has the disadvantage of smaller numbers. He uses his artillery effectively to overcome Santa Anna’s larger numbers and never attacks directly where his enemy is strongest. Vital to this strategy is the use of scouts to find the best paths around the opposing army. This is where a young engineer, Robert E. Lee, stands out and becomes valuable asset. Lee is promoted to colonel by the end of the war. The book is really his story. It is told from the point of view of the main characters, giving us their thoughts and reactions to events and telling us how they reached decisions that control events. Lee gets most of the page time, Scott a nearly equal amount, and Santa Anna is distant third in interest. One chapter each is devoted to Worth, Longstreet, Jackson and Grant, to set them up for the following Civil War books. Other characters are essentially cardboard cut outs or foils.
Historical fiction is an oxymoron; here the basic facts of what occurs are probably true although without a bibliography or even an index, it is hard to say. Lee’s correspondence has been published, so some things may be drawn from that source. The thoughts of the real people are not going to contradict what is made up for this story. But I was constantly wondering how much of Lee’s winning modestly was true and what was made up to give him a human dimension. I was also really disappointed with how the other characters were handled. Pivotal to the war history was the fact that Scott often disagreed with his subordinate Generals, but we are given a sketch outline of how it started and a one sentence summary of how it ended. Scott also was fighting politicians back home, shadow figures who sometimes seemed to want Scott to fail. The Marines have incorporated the final battles of this war into their service hymn (“From the halls of Montezuma...”), yet are not mentioned at all. Zachary Taylor’s part in this war, and the roles of England and France, get a slightly longer mention. The roles of religion in this, and the Mexican people, are brought in as side thoughts of the main characters. As an introduction to the history of the Mexican American war, this book fails. It is a character study of the development of Lee in his first real battle experience.
There is a slightly interesting anti-war current to the novel, especially at the end. The title is taken from an anti war song, “Where have all the flowers Gone” by Pete Seeger. The soldiers occasionally question the reason for the war, and often talk about how fighting is their duty and that this war is not one that they particularly believe in. It is easy for us now to draw parallels between this war and Vietnam or Iraq, both wars where we have pursued war when diplomatic solutions were either not available or ignored. But this book just skirts those issues. It is not a well developed theme.
So on the whole, did I like the book? I found it fast paced and was caught up in the action, but towards the end the flaws overcame the action flow and I ended up not liking the book. I think the reader who would enjoy it the most would be someone who had read his other books and wanted an insight into the development of Robert E. Lee. Someone wanting a good story about the War with Mexico should probably look elsewhere.

Space Explorers!!

Continuing the thoughts on Sheriff John's Lunchtime Brigade. I remember there was a space cartoon on it also. I think it must have been a series also remembered a second set. For years I have been trying to remember the name. I remember some iconic pictures from it. the space ship over the moon, the pilot hunched over his console, and the passengers sitting in the cabin watching meteors whoosh by.

So I have tried to remember what it was called over the years. It was not a really obvious name. Then last week i had my cousin Stanly over, and we were talking about the show. He remembered it too. To GOOGLE fountain of memory! Eventually we found it:

SPACE EXPLORERS!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Explorers

The Wikipedia article has a lot of great links, but to summarize the show was a cartoon serial shown in during the 50s. The sequel from 1959 was called the "New Adventures of the Space Explorers." It was shown on a couple of programs besides Sheriff John. The two-hour long sequel "New Adventures of the Space Explorers" featured additional educational space footage. For accuracy, both animated feature films used consultants from NASA and the Hayden Planetarium.
Shows like this one and the Disney space programs really had a lot to do with the fact that I developed a real interest in space and science.

The strangest part to me is that they used other sources for the art in the film. To quote Wikipeida,

"The material comes primarily from three foreign films : - various animation sequences come from the 1951 Russian film "Universe" by the late soviet director Pavel Klushantsev. - images of the rocket Polaris come from footage of German film "Weltraumschiff 1 Startet" (Anton Kutter, 1937) - but all images of the interior of the spaceship, images of the characters and from the walk on planet were extracted from a Russian cartoon film "Polet na lunu", (Flight to the moon), 1953, (Soyuzmultfilm).

Here are a few wonderful images from the show, and there are more at the Space Explorers Site:

http://www.thespaceexplorers.bravehost.com/intro.html

Sherrif John's Lunchtime Brigade

MM Sherrif John's Lunchtime Brigade TV. Age 5. Watching at lunchtime before i started kindergarden. What a memory. I found a couple of links to information about his show.. like this one, TV Acres.

http://www.tvacres.com/child_sheriff_john.htm

He had a birthday song.. a be happy song.. he was as close to Mr Rodgers as our generation got. And he had cartoons.. Crusader Rabbit.. Casper the friendly ghost. some strange space cartoon.. And Clutch Cargo, which is what i am really on about today.
Clutch Cargo had a strange thing with the animation.. The faces would be still and the characters lips would move. They looked airbrushed on. Now I have learned the secret.. They called the technique Synchro-Vox adn what they did was to have hardly any real moving pictrue animation, instead using a lot of water colored back grounds, Then the voice actors lips were filmed as they spoke their lines, and those lips were superimposed on motionles drawings of the characters faces. They also hardly ever showed characters feet when waliking or running and I still remember how the torsos woud bob up and down but other wise not move. Oftern planes and cars woudl jerk around to simulate motion. Backgrouds tended to be simple except for occasional vauge water colors. Here is a link to antoher page about the cartoon with some clips to watch:
http://www.toontracker.com/clutchcargo/cargo.htm
Hope you enjoy

July 6 2006 on the Big Blink..

Saw "The Breakup" with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn. I must admit I was a bit reluctant to see this movie. It is a known CHICK FLICK which means it is about relationships (which I actually like in a movie) and that the guy will be the one at fault (which isn't really fair now is it?)

As it turns out, the movie does stick to that formula. Gary (Vince Vaughan) is indeed a shallow self centered character, and also is funny and articulate. Booke (Jennifer Aniston) is long suffering and a really wonderful person who fell under his spell but now finds that he is not fun for the long haul. Both characters are well developed. There is a lot of humor in the story, and funny side characters, including Jon Favreau as a bartender who seems to have mafia leadings and to be totally self centered but who gives Gary the insight on how others see him. Judy Davis is hysterical as the owner of the gallery where Brook works.

My BIG complaint about this movie and many other relationship oriented movies is that the story is portrayed as having the guy as a character who needs to change and won't, and a woman as a character who puts up with all of his crap until finally she can't take it any more and decides to get out of the relationship.

No argument from me, Gary is not deserving of her. He cannot see how others see him and won't lift a finger to help another person if he doesn't want to. In the end he realizes his faults and tries to make up for it. In a rather surprising twist, Brooke has had enough and won't come back anyway. But Brooke is portrayed as wonderful person who has all any mortal could stand from Gary. Now admittedly she does see that she could have met Gary half way on some things, and maybe she could have, but it was way too little compared to Gary's realization of how he had treated he. In real life I think that the woman sometimes has to grow a little too, and perhaps the growth Brooke has is that she discovers she doesn't need Gary anymore, but I felt that this movie unfairly loaded the dice against Gary.

Can us guys have a little balance please???? I mean I know we are not perfect. But I want a relationship that serves both sides better. That is why my favorite chick flick is "When Harry Met Sally," because both the male and female haves in that move are real well developed but flawed people.

Big wheel keep on Blinkin.. Proud Mary keeps on Turning.. The Blink